Jesus Freaks Me Out


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July

My Links
STOP TCPA!!!!

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


"Those who are willing to give up freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt

digg links, for the techie:


....Big Brother Tries to Muscle ISPs
05.31.05 (2:34 pm)   [edit]

 


 


WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to restore its ability to compel Internet service providers to turn over information about their customers or subscribers as part of its fight against terrorism.


The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.


U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of New York last year blocked the government from conducting secret searches of communications records, saying the law that authorized them wrongly barred legal challenges and imposed a gag order on affected businesses.


The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and an internet access firm that received a national security letter from the FBI demanding records. The identity of the firm remains secret.


The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by the Patriot Act in 2001.


The administration said the judge's ruling was off the mark because the company did mount a legal challenge to the demand for records. "Yet in this very case, the recipient of the national security letter did precisely what the NSLs supposedly prevent recipients from doing," the filing said.


The law's ban on disclosing that such a letter has been received also is appropriate because of legitimate security concerns, the government said.


But ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer said the law does not contain a provision to challenge the FBI's demand for documents. The ACLU and the firm filed the lawsuit to challenge the law's constitutionality on the grounds that it doesn't contain such a provision, he said.


"Most people who get NSLs don't know they can bring a challenge in court because the statute doesn't say they can," he said. "No one has filed a motion to quash in 20 years."


The ban on disclosure is so broad that the ACLU initially filed the suit under seal and negotiated for weeks on a version that could be released to the public.


Previously censored material released several months after Marrero's ruling included innocuous material the government wanted withheld, the ACLU said, including the phrase "national security" and this sentence from a statement by an FBI agent: "I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."


From Wired News (http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0" title="http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0" target="_blank"http://www.wired.com/news/pri...,1848,67674,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7)

 
...do the world a favor and go to hell BUSH
05.11.05 (8:12 am)   [edit]

 









...just another thought


 




The U.S.A. Patriot Act is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The 320-page act was passed only days after the September 11th attacks. This incredibly short timeframe alone has raised numerous eyebrows. Since the passing of the Patriot Act, over 150 communities denounced it as an attack on civil liberties.


The most infamous part of the act, in terms of generating protest and lawsuits, has been Section 215, which allows for the scrutiny of “any tangible thing.” The problem here is that “thing” includes everything – books, records, papers, and documents can all be searched.






The Patriot Act can override probable cause. The FBI only needs to tell a judge that the search protects the country against terrorism. Needless to say, this is a broad and vague definition


It means the government now has the right to march into your local public library and demand a list of everyone who checked out Al Franken’s latest book or books on Islam or books on making explosives. Or it could target you for some reason. What books have you borrowed from the library recently? Silent Spring? 1984? The Birkenstock catalog?


As of right now, Washington D.C. is the only place where a public library is required to notify a patron if he or she is under investigation. The American Library Association advises librarians faced with court orders to immediately notify the library attorney but not the particular patron.


Tracking your library card records aren’t the extent of Section 215. The FBI now has the right to obtain medical and financial records, monitor email, and tap your phone, all without probable cause.


The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom from unnecessary search and seizure. That means if the police want to search your home, they need to show a judge “probable cause” in order to get a search warrant. Probable cause means the police have to build a reasonable case before they can invade your privacy.


The Patriot Act overrides probable cause. The FBI only needs to tell a judge that the search protects the country against terrorism. Needless to say, this is a broad and vague definition. More specific terms aren’t needed anyway since the judge cannot deny the application. What the Department of Justice calls “seeking a court order” is now merely getting a rubber stamp.


The person being searched doesn’t even have to be a terrorist suspect, as long as the investigation “protects against terrorism.” And the scope of terrorism has been broadened to include domestic terrorism. This could potentially be used against Americans speaking out against policies they don’t agree with. Writing an anti-Bush letter to the editor could make you a suspect.


In addition, you don’t even have to be the subject of the investigation. It could be an old friend from college who you haven’t seen in twenty years. Or your best friend’s brother-in-law, who you met once at a family wedding. Or your dry cleaner. The vaguest connection is suspect.


George Orwell’s 1984 underestimated the year Big Brother would have the technology to invade everyone’s privacy. And Orwell never dreamed how fast and easy it would be. There’s no need for loudspeakers or unsightly video cameras. In fact, you probably won’t even know your every word and move is being scrutinized. Thanks to the Patriot Act, Orwell could have called his book 2004.


from: www.legalzoom.com


 

 
...WHY ARE AMERICANS IDOTS OR Real ID passes in US Senate
05.11.05 (7:58 am)   [edit]

 


Privacy advocates' efforts to stop legislation that would create a federally-approved electronic ID card failed today. A military spending bill which contained the so-called Real ID Act driver's license reform passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Snip from Declan McCullagh's report at News.com:


President Bush (...) is expected to sign the bill into law this month. Its backers, including the Bush administration, say it's needed to stop illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers' licenses. When the act's mandates take effect in May 2008, Americans will be required to obtain federally approved ID cards with "machine readable technology" that abides by Department of Homeland Security specifications. Anyone without such an ID card will be effectively prohibited from traveling by air or Amtrak, opening a bank account, or entering federal buildings.

Link to "Senate approves electronic ID card bill."


See also coverage at Wired News by Kim Zetter: "No Real Debate for Real ID." snip:

The legislation is raising questions not only about privacy and costs but about the ways in which critical legislation gets passed in Congress. That's because lawmakers slipped the bill into a larger piece of legislation -- an $82 billion spending bill -- that authorizes funds for the Iraq war and tsunami relief, among other things, and is considered a must-pass piece of legislation.

It's not the first time Congress has slipped contentious bills into larger legislation that is almost guaranteed to pass. In 2003, Congress augmented Patriot Act surveillance powers with wording slipped into the Intelligence Authorization Act, a bill that authorized funding for intelligence agencies.

Critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say lawmakers slipped the Real ID Act into the relatively uncontroversial spending bill in order to avoid a congressional debate over the ID measure.


http://wired.com/news/privacy/0" title="http://wired.com/news/privacy/0" target="_blank"http://wired.com/news/privacy...,1848,67471,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1


 


http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/06/faq_how_re al_id_act_.html" title="http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/06/faq_how_re al_id_act_.html" target="_blank"http://www.boingboing.net/200...


 


http://www.politechbot.com/2005/05/11/senators-a gain-ignore/" title="http://www.politechbot.com/2005/05/11/senators-a gain-ignore/" target="_blank"http://www.politechbot.com/20...

 
...NO to National ID Card!!!!
05.09.05 (3:52 pm)   [edit]

 


 


...just say no!!


 


http://www.unrealid.com/" title="http://www.unrealid.com/" target="_blank"http://www.unrealid.com/


 


 

 
QUOTE: Stupidity has a bad habit of getting its way. --"The Day After"

QUOTE: Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor. – A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

QUOTE: War: A wretched debasement of all the pretenses of civilization. – General Omar Bradley

I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... – Benjamin Franklin

"There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly."-- Klaatu, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 1951.

Listed on Blogwise